TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee is a HUF owning some agricultural lands in Kodihalli village situated within the urban agglomeration of the City of Bangalore. Survey Nos. 193, 206 and 207/1 of the said village were acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, in pursuance of the preliminary notification under s. 4 and final notification dated August 19, 1964, issued under s. 6 by the Land Acquisition Officer for, and on behalf of, the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB). The possession of survey No. 206 was taken by the LAO, on April 21, 1973, and survey Nos. 193 and 207/1 on November 8, 1973. In the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) brought to tax, under " capital gains ", the compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(47) of the I.T. Act. The acquisition for the CITB was done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer appointed for this purpose by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. Under s. 45 of the I.T. Act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year is chargeable to Income-tax under the head " Capital gains " and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Under s. 2(47) of the I.T. Act, the term " transfer " is defined as " transfer ", in relation to a capital asset, includes the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. " Under this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mysore. The Tribunal had relied upon two decisions reported as Neelkanth Mali v. Jagannath Singh, AIR 1957 Raj 59 and Patel Gandalal Somnath v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 Guj 50, in Kannan's case which was the subjectmatter of a reference before this court in I.T.R.C. No. II 9 of 1978 (Kannan v. CIT disposed of on December 12, 1984-[1984] 154 ITR 441). It was held by this court in that case that the title to the lands vests in Government under s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act on the taking of possession of the land by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to an award passed under s. II of the Act. It is thus laid down by this court that the transfer of title in the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act passes to Government with the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Act (Act I of 1894), provide that the property so acquired, upon the happening of certain events, shall 'vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.' In the cases contemplated by ss. 16 and 17, the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any conditions or limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that, the vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration. It would thus appear that the word 'vest' has not got a fixed connotation, meaning in all cases that the property is owned by the person or the authority in whom it vests. It may vest in title, or it may vest in possession, or it may vest in a limited sense, as indicated in the context ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
